CRR-1598-2026 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 129 CRR-1598-2026 Decided on : 08.07.2026 Ashwani . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Ms. Pinki Mehla, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner – Ashwani , aged 41 years, has filed the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, by challenging the order dated 20.05.2026, passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal, vide which, application filed by the petitioner for examination of expert witnesses in defense has been declined and consequently, vide order dated 02.07.2026, defence evidence has been closed in Criminal Complaint Case No. NACT-397-2021, titled as, “Jagsir Singh v. Ashwani”. 2. Impugned order dated 20.05.2026, passed by Ld. JMIC, Kaithal, is reproduced as under:- “Present: Sh. O.P. Gulati, Advocate for complainant. Accused on bail represented by Sh. Amit Kaushik, Advocate. By this order, I shall dispose off an application for examine the expert witness in the defence evidence of applicant / accused moved by applicant/accused through counsel. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for applicant/accused that the applicant/accused has taken the defence that the disputed blank JAWALA RAM 2026.07.09 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRR-1598-2026 - 2 - signed cheque in the present complaint was stolen and misused by the complainant (now deceased). It is further submitted that only the signatures on the cheque belong to the applicant/accused, whereas the handwriting in words and figures is not of the applicant/accused. The applicant/accused seeks permission to examine an expert witness in defence evidence for obtaining a handwriting opinion regarding the disputed cheque. It was further argued that signature over the cheque in question is not disputed. As far as the body writing over the cheque in question is concerned any person. With these submission prayed that the present application be allowed in the interest of justice. 3. On the other hand, no reply has been filed by the accused. However, it is argued by learned counsel for the accused that the present application has been filed only to delay the proceedings in the present case. With these submissions, prayed that the application in hand be dismissed. 4. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the case file carefully. 5. By way of the present application, the applicant/accused seeks permission to examine a handwriting expert in defence evidence regarding the disputed cheque. A holistic reading of the application filed by the applicant/accused shows that the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and has disputed only the remaining contents of the cheque. It is a settled proposition of law that once the signatures on the cheque are admitted, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act comes into operation in favour of the complainant. 6. In the present matter, the accused has already admitted his signatures on the cheque in question. Mere dispute regarding the handwriting of the remaining contents of the cheque is not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption at this stage. Moreover, as per settled law, the body of the cheque may be filled by any person and the same does not invalidate the cheque. The present application appears to have been moved only to delay the disposal of the complaint. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances, the application in hand deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Nothing herein shall construe to be my opinion upon the merits of the case. Announced in open Court (Sandeep Kaur) Dated: 20.05.2026 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Kaithal. UID No.HR0508” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reads out the cross- examination of the complainant – Jagsir Singh (respondent herein), wherein the suggestion put by the petitioner (accused) that the blank cheque had been obtained by the complainant and, thereafter, in order to grab the money, the same was filled subsequently, though not by the petitioner, has been specifically denied by the complainant. Photocopy of the aforesaid cross- JAWALA RAM 2026.07.09 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRR-1598-2026 - 3 - examination/statement, as well as order dated 02.07.2026, passed by learned JMIC, Kaithal, vide which, defence evidence has been closed, produced by learned counsel for the petitioner, are taken on record. On the strength of the aforesaid cross-examination, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasoning assigned in the impugned order, namely, that the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and that mere dispute regarding the handwriting of the remaining contents of the cheque is not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption at that stage, is legally unsustainable. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner's request to examine an expert witness in defence evidence for obtaining a handwriting opinion with regard to the disputed cheque deserves to have been allowed, particularly in view of the specific defence taken by the petitioner that, although the signatures on the cheque are admitted, the remaining contents thereof were not filled in by him and have been subsequently filled in by some other person. 4. Learned counsel further submits that, in case one effective opportunity is granted to the petitioner by taking a sympathetic view, the petitioner shall examine the expert witness on the date fixed by the trial Court, without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. Thus, prays for allowing the present petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 20.05.2026. 5. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and has also gone through the impugned order as well as the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has admitted his signatures JAWALA RAM 2026.07.09 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRR-1598-2026 - 4 - on the cheque in question. However, the consistent stand taken by the petitioner, even during cross-examination of the complainant, is that although the cheque bears his signatures, the remaining contents thereof were not filled in by him and that the signed blank cheque had been subsequently misused by the complainant (respondent herein). In view of this, apprehension of the petitioner that the signed cheque obtained from him has later on been misused by the complainant (respondent herein) cannot be ruled out. Since, petitioner seeks to examine a handwriting expert only to substantiate the aforesaid defence, this Court is of the considered opinion that an effective opportunity ought to have been granted to him to lead the said evidence. Denial of such an opportunity may prejudice the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner. At the same time, apprehension expressed by the respondent with regard to delay in conclusion of the trial also deserves due consideration. 7. In the interest of justice and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, impugned order dated 20.05.2026, whereby petitioner's application for examination of an expert witness in defence evidence was dismissed, as well as the consequential order dated 02.07.2026 closing the defence evidence, are set aside. Accordingly, petitioner is granted two effective opportunities to examine the handwriting expert before the learned trial Court. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted thereafter on this count and petitioner shall ensure that the expert witness is present on the dates so fixed by the trial Court, without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. In case of JAWALA RAM 2026.07.09 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRR-1598-2026 - 5 - failure to avail the aforesaid opportunities, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. 8. Furthermore, liberty is granted to the complainant (respondent herein) that if he still feels aggrieved by the opportunity granted by this Court, he may file an appropriate application for the revival of the present petition. 9. Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 08, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: √ Yes/No Whether Reportable: √ Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.07.09 20:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document